How many judgments cite CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.?

1,261 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 8D.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

366 ITR 505High Court2014#34 most cited

What is CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

1,261

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v HDFC Bank Ltd · 366 ITR 505 · Section 14A disallowance · interest expenditure · exempt income · interest-free funds · own funds · presumption · sufficiency of funds · dividend income · Rule 8D

Also reported as

49 Taxmann.com 335226 Taxmann 132107 DTR 140

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 8D Section 10(34)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

disallowance of interest expenditure disallowance under section 14a disallowance u/s 14a section 14a book profits revenue expenditure section 115j section 115jb section 32 capital expenditure section 37(1)section 36

Judgments citing CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3076/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit CIT, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37Section 40A(9)Section 42Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…ds was Rs.22.92 crores and investment in shares and mutual funds was Rs.449.67 crores during the relevant period. In HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referring to the decision in CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom) held as under : “15. It is clear that for the first time in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) that this Court took a view that the presumption which has been laid down in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) with regard to investment in tax free securities coming out…

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rare Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1562/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Dihashis (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…has not understood the facts correctly. (b) Secondly, the AO has taken the view that the borrowed funds should be considered as used for making investments, which Is against the principles laid down by Hon tile Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (366 ITR 505). 7 A.Y.2014-15 (c) Thirdly, the AO has expressed the view that- making of investments and earning of exempt income requires efforts. This is contrary to the following observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd (supra):- "40 It is to be kept in mind that in those cases where shares are held as stock in trade…

Raman & Weil P Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 993/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Raman & Weil P. Dcit -1(3)(1), Ltd., Mumbai 36-37, Mittal Chambers Vs. Opp. Inox Theatre, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacr5065M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vijay Jaiswal, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.11.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 20114-15. 2. The Issue Raised In First Ground Of Appeal Is Against The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Sales Promotion Expenses Being Gifts To Doctors & Hospitals Amounting To Rs.10,76,256/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Jaiswal, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Raman & Weil P. DCIT -1(3)(1), Ltd., Mumbai 36-37, Mittal Chambers Vs. Opp. Inox Theatre, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAACR5065M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Vijay Jaiswal, D.R. Date of Hearing : 20.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.11.2018 of the Co…

M/S Spincotech Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 470/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Spincotech Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of New No.4, Vaidyaram Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle -6(2), T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aafcs9992P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 14A

…Rules, 1962, despite the fact that the assessee is having sufficient own funds which is more than the amount of investments which yield exempt income. In this regard, he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505. As regards disallowance under 3rd limb of Rule 8D, the learned AR submitted that investments in partnership firm and investments in mutual funds which are short term and debt funds 6 liable for capital gains cannot be considered for the purpose of determining average value of investments. 6. The learned DR on the other hand, submitted that fro…

Milind Pralhad Bhandarkar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1559/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Prathamesh J. Lawand

Section 14A

…ent. Therefore, in our opinion, the disallowance of interest expenses made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. 7. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505 held that “it would be presumed that the investment made by the assessee would be out of interest free funds available with the assessee.” In the present case as 4 A.Y.2010-11 discussed above, the assessee‟s own funds were more than the investment made. Therefore, by applying the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay, the disal…

Laxmi Diamond Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-5(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 2350/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2350/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Laxmi Diamond Private Limited Dcit-5(2) बिाम/ Ew-2200, Bharat Diamond Bourse 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Bandra Kurla Complex M.K.Marg Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcl-1815-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…milar additions in AY 2009-10 vide ITA No.1106/Mum/2016 order dated 22/11/2019 by relying upon the binding decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Utility & Power Ltd. (2009 313 ITR 340) as well as in CIT V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014 366 ITR 505). We find the factual matrix to be similar in this year. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned interest disallowance is not sustainable in law. By deleting the same, we allow the appeal. 8. The appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced on 22nd October, 2020. (Amarjit Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) न्यायिक सदस्य / Judici…

Shree Naman Securities Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4789/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am M/S. Shree Naman Securities Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(4) & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 415, Parekh Market, 39, J.S.S.Road Opera House Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn1917G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mahesh O Rajora Revenue By Shri V. Vinod Kumar Date Of Hearing 28/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2020

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ssee and not out of borrowed funds. We find lot of force in this argument of the ld. AR 3 M/s. Shree Naman Securities Finance P. Ltd., and by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., vs. CIT in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom), we direct the ld. AO to delete the disallowance made on account of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules in view of availability of own funds. Since, the entire interest disallowance is directed to be deleted under second limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, the alternat…

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle-2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7895/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mufg Bank Ltd, Vs. Acit (International Taxation), 5Th Floor, Worldmark 2, Asset 8, Circle-2(2)(1), Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabct3880D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shr Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 37(1)Section 44C

…(89 taxmann.com 326) (Del. Trib.) (Para 47 Page 431 of Compilation) c. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (379 ITR 347) (SC) (Para 16 Page 440 of Compilation) d. Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (410 ITR 466) (SC) (Para 7 Page 442 of Compilation) e. CIT vs. HDFC (366 ITR 505) (Bom.) (Para 4 Page 445 of Compilation) f. CIT vs. Ashok Apparel (106 taxmann.com 63) (Bom.) (Para 7 Page 450 of Compilation) g. PCIT vs Shreno Ltd. – 409 ITR 401 (Guj) (Para 16 & 17) (Pages 458 & 459 of Compilation) 18. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer and submitted that as…

Mehta Equities Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT -4 (2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5850/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36

…not been utilised for the purchase of such investments and hence, disallowance of interest under rule 8D(2)(ii) of Rs. 12,82,425/- is found to be not justified and is deleted. Reliance is place on the following decisions- (i) CIT v HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom) (ii) CIT v Reliance Industries Ltd (Civil appeal No. 10 of 2019)(SC) (iii) CIT v Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom) The AO has computed disallowance of expenditure under rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs. 236,733 @ 0.5% of the average value of investment. The appellant has submitted that major expenses have been incurred unde…

Kanchan Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asst. CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1854/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani &For Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(2)(b)

…meet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal". 23. Similarly, we also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd reported in 366 ITR 505 (Bom). The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below:- "Where assessee's capital, profit reserves, surplus and current account deposits were higher than the investment in tax-free securities, it would have to be I.T.A No. 1854/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 6 Kanchan Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT presumed that investment made by the Assessee…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Citicorp Finance (I) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4471/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd., Circle - 14(1)(2) 5Th Floor, Plot C-61 Room No. 475, 4Th Floor Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabca3223B (Appellant) (Respondent) Co.No. 172/Mum/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 4471/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2012-13)] M/S. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd., V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 5Th Floor, Plot C-61 Circle - 14(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block Room No. 475, 4Th Floor Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 079 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabca3223B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal

Section 115JSection 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax v. M/s. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd., Circle - 14(1)(2) 5th Floor, Plot C-61 Room No. 475, 4th Floor Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AABCA3223B (Appellant) (Respondent) CO.NO. 172/MUM/2019 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 4471/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2012-13)] M/s. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd., v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax 5th Floor, Plot C-61 Circle - 14(1)(2),…

Ameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Uran vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1885/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle 2(1)(1), Village- Dhasakoshi, R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Post- Khoproli, Kopte, Aayakar Bhavan, Taluka-Uran, District – Raigad M.K. Road, Vs. 410 212 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

…ITA No.1885/Mum/2019 A.Y.2015-16 1 ITA No.2044/Mum/2019 , A.Y. 2015-16 Ameya Logistics Pvt. ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Village- Dhasakoshi, R. No. 561, 5th Floor, Post- Khoproli, Kopte, Aayakar Bhavan, Taluka-Uran, District – Raigad M.K. Road, Vs. 410 212 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN – AAECA4562C Appellant Respondent ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), M/s Ameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 561, 5th Floor, 4th Floor, Hamilton House, B.J.N. Aay…

Mirah Hospitality & Food Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 4693/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: The Itat In These Cases Against A Common Order Of Learned Cit(A) For A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Dated 28.5.2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of “Hotels & Resorts”, Filed The Return Of Income For The Ay 2009-2010 Declaring The Total Loss Of Rs.43,15,534/- After Set Off Of Ltcg Of Rs. 1,31,36,082/-. Assessee Is A Group Concern Of M/S. Twinkle Group. There Was A Search & Seizure Action On The Said M/S. Twinkle Group U/S 132 Of The Act. Accordingly, In Response To The Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring The Same Total Loss (Rs. (-) 43,15,334/-). Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act Determining The Total Loss Of Rs. 3,82,977/- Which Include Certain Disallowances & Rs. 27,68,422/- Is One

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…ve heard both the counsel and perused the record. Learned Counsel of the assessee submitted the following proposition with the following citations :- “No disallowance of interest under section 14A when own and non-interest bearing funds exceed investments 1. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 2. 383 ITR 529 (Bom.) HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT 3. 410 ITR 466 (SC) CIT v. Reliance Industries Limited II Disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income 1. 372 ITR 694 (Del.) Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 2. 286 CTR 457 (P&H) Pr. CIT v. Empire Package Pvt. Ltd 3. 96 CCH 87 (Madras) Tecpro Systems Ltd. v.…

M/S Aarkay Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2091/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 14Section 14A

…e investment made in shares is fully covered by the assessee’s own fund, disallowance of interest made by the AO by applying Rule 8D(2) (ii)is un- warranted . And cited the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 366 ITR 505(Bom HC) has held “ where assessee’s own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than investment in tax free securities, impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing a part of interest payments under section 14A of the Act ( read with rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T Rules, 1962 ) needs to be set aside”. We note that Hon’ble Bombay…

Dow Chemicals International P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

ITA 1786/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Am & Shrim.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Dow Chemical Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax 11(1)(1) (Dcipl) As Successor Of Mumbai Rohm & Haas (India) Pvt. Room No.204, Ltd., (Rhipl) Aayakar Bhavan 1St Floor, Block B M.K.Road, 02, Godrej Business District Mumbai – 400 020 Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 079 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4467B & Aaacr2855F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT DB-III),’K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, AM & SHRIM.BALAGANESH, AM M/s. Dow Chemical Vs. Assistant Commissioner of International Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax 11(1)(1) (DCIPL) as successor of Mumbai Rohm and Haas (India) Pvt. Room No.204, Ltd., (RHIPL) Aayakar Bhavan 1st Floor, Block B M.K.Road, 02, Godrej Business District Mumbai – 400 020 Pirojshanagar, LBS Marg Vikhroli (W) Mumbai – 400 079 PAN/GIR No.AAACD4467B & AAACR2855F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajan Vora -AR Revenue by Shri Anand Mohan – CIT DR Date of Hearing 17/08/2020 Date of…

Drs Dilip Roadlines Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Secunderabad vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1212/HYD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 (Through Video Conference) Drs Dilip Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 17(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aadcd 1865 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvindakshan RS

…only out of own funds of the assessee and not out of borrowed funds. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and in the case of HDFC Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 505. Respectfully following the ratio decidendi of the same decision, we hold that there cannot be any disallowance of interest on borrowed capital in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, grounds Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 relate to employees contribution to PF and ESI amounting to Rs. 18,…

Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela vs. DCIT, Rorukela Circle, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 393/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

…se material or evidence proving the utilisation of interest bearing funds for the purpose of advancing interest free loans/advances. 40. We find that the ld CIT(A) referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs HDFC Bank (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom), wherein, it has been held that where the assessee’s capital, net profit, reserves, surplus and current account deposits are higher than the investment in tax free security, it would have to be presumed that the P a g e 29 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela investment made by the assessee would be…

ACIT, Rorukela Circle, Rourkela vs. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 389/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

Unitech Marketing Services, Mumbai vs. ACIT - Circle -17 (3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5254/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Unitech Marketing Services, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 511, Plot No. 15, Raheja Plaza, Circle-17(3), Co. Soc. Ltd. Veera Desai Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Vs. Shah Industrial Estate, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri V. P. Kothari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the tax free income security was in sum of Rs. 65,00,000/-, therefore, there should be no interest disallowance in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. bearing ITA No. 1398 of 2008 and CIT Vs. HDFC Ltd. 366 ITR 505. On the other hand the ld. Representative of the department has refuted the said contention. The balance sheet as on 31.02.2013 is on the record which lies at Page 10 of the paper book. The balance sheet speaks that the assessee’s own refund is more than 64.82 crores whereas the investment is to the extent of 64.82 lacs. In view of the decision r…

ACIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1467/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 134ASection 14A

…ITA No. 1467/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Virtual Court Hearing] Before Justice P.P. Bhatt, President & Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President I.T.A. No. 1467/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,......................................Appellant Circle-5(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- M/s. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Limited,............Respondent 2, Red Cross Place, Kolkata-700001 [PAN:AAACH7557G] App…